Re: Is it wrong to be racist?
you can get away with ad hominem and a semblance of ethos when arguing with retards rubix but you can't just get away with "i've read more books than u!" "i'm smarter than u!" "u don't understand anything u mean!!" right now
here's where you're and you're being obtuse, probably intentionally. yes, people disagree over the term racism, precisely because you're refusing to look at the term from a laymen perspective.
i don't think anyone here except you, including the creator of the topic, wanted to talk about how to examine statistical trends and how to act on those trends - they are talking about exactly this: "Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another, at the most basic level of definition (genetics aside)." and not the proceeding.
It's fine if you want to go off on a tangent about statistical distribution, but don't act like an angry frothing idiot when we agree that resource distribution poises races uniquely over another in hierarchy, but disagree that it connects to the idea of this thread; that is, is the idea of racism that you just agreed is what we hold as racism justifiable.
Diamond's and your argument justify only what they intend to justify, the racial hierarchies and trends in place as a result of certain distributions; NOT the sort of definitional racism that this thread is about.
Not expecting you to get your head out of your ass because you're ****ing rubix but who knows
you can get away with ad hominem and a semblance of ethos when arguing with retards rubix but you can't just get away with "i've read more books than u!" "i'm smarter than u!" "u don't understand anything u mean!!" right now
Nobody disagrees about what we mean by racism. Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another, at the most basic level of definition (genetics aside). It's definitely "wrong" to be racist in this way (because, not only is it "morally wrong" as a result of being offensive, where morality is a construct of social optima, but it's "statistically wrong" to judge the value of a set of variables before they are observed. It's also biologically false). The question arises when we look at distributions, where the trends DO emerge. It is wrong, statistically, to deny that these trends exist. Whenever we meet someone new, it's always a good idea to keep an open mind and not judge by race, to be sure.
i don't think anyone here except you, including the creator of the topic, wanted to talk about how to examine statistical trends and how to act on those trends - they are talking about exactly this: "Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another, at the most basic level of definition (genetics aside)." and not the proceeding.
It's fine if you want to go off on a tangent about statistical distribution, but don't act like an angry frothing idiot when we agree that resource distribution poises races uniquely over another in hierarchy, but disagree that it connects to the idea of this thread; that is, is the idea of racism that you just agreed is what we hold as racism justifiable.
Diamond's and your argument justify only what they intend to justify, the racial hierarchies and trends in place as a result of certain distributions; NOT the sort of definitional racism that this thread is about.
Not expecting you to get your head out of your ass because you're ****ing rubix but who knows

Comment